ID doesn't specify the designer. So the only qualifier they need is "A designer with an I.Q. of at least 115 like Joe Id here, could have..." and they're home free.
Sure, Joe could have, but since you have no evidence of Joe, saying "Joe did it" cannot be a conclusion. It is mere speculation, and not science.
On the flip side, when Joe Atheist does the very same experiment, he can't say "Random, mindless chance could have..." ID can then take Jo Atheist's results, and claim "A designer with an IQ of at least 123 like Joe Atheist could have..."
Showing chemicals combining and saying they can combine like that, then concluding starting life is possible by chemicals combining like that is not saying that there is no God. It's just saying that this is one way life could have started, which supports the hypothesis that life began by chemicals combining together.
Thus it seems ID has a big whopping advantage when it comes to framing hypotheses. Most experiments are conducted by someone, and not left to random chance.
Maybe I'm just sleepy, because this looks like a you're saying that because humans make experiments that life had to have a designer. You will really have to flesh this out for me to make the logical connection. It may seem obvious to you, but it escapes me how the two are connected.
But the problem remains that all results are protrayed as exclusively supporting atheistic abiogenesis (if not conclusively proving it), and at the same time ID and CS (yep, creation science) are put down as unscientific, and in denial of the results of these tests.
It may seem as supporting atheistic abiogenesis because God/aliens/pink unicorns/fairies are not mentioned. However, the designer is not seen. Design is not conclusively seen. So what should they do? Should they say something like "The designer we cannot show evidence for must have done it like..."? That's exactly like saying "The designer made this river curve right here" or "The designer made this snowflake just like this". In science you cannot attribute a result to a particular cause unless you can show evidence of causality.
Now when atheist abiogenesis devises an experiment or hypothesis which distinguishes it from ID, they might be able to claim to have a monopoly.
That is assuming that the "atheist" claims to have a monopoly. Saying "I see no god at work here" is not the same as saying "There is no god at work here".
That's not assuming. That's observing. And in every case there is some intelligent being at work.
Don't tell me...SHOW me. Show me this intelligent being or real evidence of his work. Show me how you decide which parts of life are designed and which parts are from natural causes. If it is the God of the Bible, show me His work and explain how you differentiate that from the work of chemicals combining. Until ID does that, their claim that a designer exists is only a hypothesis that is not even mature enough to have falsification possibilities defined. It certainly cannot be accepted as a theory that science will consider viable.
ID is not science unless they have a hypothesis that evidence may be able to falsify. Until they provide that hypothesis and perform experiments that try to falsify it, but doesn't falsify it, ID cannot be taught as a viable hypothesis.
Y'all keep sayin' that & I'm gonna start postin' links. I'm no big fan of ID, but I get tired of seein' 'em badmouthed all the time. Shoot, you claim about the same thing some of them do. I don't see why you need to be so down on them. Job security?
I'm an engineer. My job security does not depend on evolution, so that dog won't hunt.
Post your links to the falsifiable hypothesis and the experiments being done to show the designer or strong evidence of the hand of a designer. I am confused as to why you would threaten to do that instead of just doing it. If those links support your side of the debate, they should already be here for us to see. If I am wrong, I have no problem being shown that I am wrong.
It'd be a little more polite to just say "only the mainstream can ever be science."
First, I think it would be less polite. Second, it would be a falsehood. Just ask Copernicus, Newton, Mendel and Einstein.
